“How are folks who practically wet themselves at a firing range going to make sensible decisions about which weapons are too dangerous to own? The more people want to pass gun laws because they got scared at the sound of popping tires, the less likely anyone is to actually trust them to do that.” – Matthew Cochran in Why People Don’t Trust Liberals To Regulate Guns [at thefederalist.com]
The only error in that statement is the assumption the antis are interested in sensible decisions.
When it is all emotions and sacred belief in civilian disarmament, sensible isn’t part of the equation. To our benefit thankfully.
Minor Correction:
Sacred belief in control of others; civilian disarmament is only a means to that end.
Pretty good read.
Yep. Some of the comments are pretty good, too.
Some are, but a lot of those threads seem to be of the “neener neener neener you don’t got no weiner” playground variety.
The Federalist has become a staple of mine. They do really good stuff.
Seems like the more irrational fear a legislator has the better the chances are constituents will support that legislator.
What legislation/regulation isn’t rooted in hysterical irrational fear and written by the completely ignorant? If it weren’t for ignorant lunatics on witch hunts we’d have hardly any laws at all.
Do tell? I’ve written (or plagiarized) several city ordinances in my elected capacity. Not all that uncommon the need to tell MORONS not to be a MORON. If it were not for MORONS infringing on the property rights of others humans likely would never have found the need to invent government. This isn’t Eden.
Well said. I would add that laws aren’t just passed to tell people what to do; they are also passed to provide a mechanism to allow censure of said moron when he/she does moronic and/or socially-unacceptable things. The trick is to limit laws to things that actually need to be limited, and to do so in a way that ultimately achieves a corporate good through deterrence more than through unending punishment.
Let me fix the first paragraph —
“How are folks who practically wet themselves with fright at the thought of going to a gun range going to make sensible decisions about which weapons are too dangerous to own? The more people want to pass gun laws because they got scared at the sound of popping tires, the less likely anyone is to actually trust them to do that.”
That first part was a reference to the guy that claimed he got bruised and suffered PTSD from shooting an AR.
Yup, and the “popping tires” refers to some dumb twit who panicked when she heard a bicycle tire pop and tearfully begged the G to ban guns as a result.
Don’t think for a minute that these hoplophobic liberal bed wetters know any more about the economy, banking, health care, climate, etc. than they know about guns. They’re barely functioning imbeciles.
I know you et cetera’d, but you left out an important one:
EDUCATION
These are the SAME people that have wrested control of the education system. They OWN it.
They set the standards, they control the flow of money, etc. The set the narrative in schools from the top down.
Even private schools are not immune…not completely immune anyway.
Yes, we hire the dumbest people in our society to lead us and the second dumbest people to educate our children (up to the age of 26).
That is very insulting of true imbeciles. At least they have the excuse of a physical handicap of low IQ.
Liberal/regressives don’t have that excuse. Many, when in debate, can show a very high level of education and erudition.
No, the more frightening aspect of the typical liberal/regressives shows more the power of the state in brain washing and indictrination, otherwise known as being “politically correct”. This is the Pavlovian conditioned response to certain triggers that completely shut down all rational and logical thought, and replace this very unique human quality with tapes of the “correct thoughts”.
Most of which support the actions of the elite in implementing an ever expanding matrix of governmental power and control.
This is the true battle. The war to reclaim our only quality that differentiates us from being animals or to be thoughtful, logical, self aware and free human beings.
What about the possibility that Congress is full of normal people and it’s impossible to be subject experts on all of those subjects? I know what i do about guns, but I’m not super informed about many other policies or ideologies.
Lobbyists would just make things that much harder.
I figure the best way to go about it is to ask kuntzman what is too scary to own. Have him shoot an example of every firearm on the market, and if he survives the experience, then he can let us know which ones are too scary.
I think once he tries out an m14 or maybe a Barrett .50, he may have to go to a safe space for an extended period of time and might not be able to articulate an answer. Therefore, none are too scary to be banned.
Speaking of Ask Kuntzman:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2016/06/16/ask-kuntzman/
I think an important thing to recognize is that the political elite does not fear guns, they fear that We The People will use guns to stop them from subjugating the people. The political elite, however, stirs up fear to convince the uninformed voter to allow them to execute their plan.
Excellent point, but it’s even deeper than that.
They fear We The People having the POTENTIAL to use guns.
The armed populace was intended as a deterrent to government over-reach. Essentially, the thinking goes that “intelligent, logical representatives would NEVER act against the interest of the citizenry knowing that citizenry can rise up and meet the government force-on-force if need be.”
I guess if the Founders failed at anything, it was underestimating the capacity of some people’s willingness to give their individual sovereignty away and others to use that to gain control over others.
Bob363,
I am going to provide a slight correction/enhancement to your last sentence:
The political elite, however, stirs up fear to
convince the uninformed voter to allow them to executegain support of uniformed voters and create the appearance of legitimacy for their plan.While the difference is subtle, I believe it is significant because popular support for a policy or law does not make it righteous or legitimate.
I recall reading religious reformer Martin Luther’s early letters to a notable of Saxony, calling in one for reliable defense against “the murderous hordes of thieving peasants.”
Fear of what the British UC refer(red) to as “the lower orders” seems a natural reaction among any elite that comes to realize it has gained true effective power over every non-elite person, for example the Peerage in England over the yeomen and peasantry five hundred years ago.
Eventually the upper middle class and “the educated” claim the same privilege of domination over the next lower group. Once every group/class is under some other group’s thumb/axe, life becomes tedious and rebellions occur increasingly often. No?
The Firearms freedom, as immensely important as it is in its own right, is almost never about firearms freedom, or at least not just about it.
Firearms freedom represents the fundamental relationship between the government and the people. Master and slave? Crown and subject? Ruling class and proletariat? State governing with the consent of the governed, and citizen?
Firearms freedom is a proxy for individual responsibility, self-reliance, and moral bravery. It’s a self-sacrificial duty to yourself and your family.
These things transcend government. Government undermines these things. Government relies on dependency and subservience. Gun culture counters this, which why liberalism despises private firarms ownership.
Well said.
Your remarks reminded me of something else posted here not too long ago where the equation was made between gun ownership and the ultimate statement of individual responsibility. It was a great comment, as is yours.
“Government undermines these things.”
I certainly agree that the government we have now undermines the things you mentioned, but the question I ponder is “Is that necessarily always true?”
*IF* a government followed not only the letter but also the Spirit of the Constitution and (perhaps more importantly) the Bill of Rights, could a government that truly existed only to protect the rights of its citizens be created?
The Founders thought so, I guess. They tried.
What’s missing from their attempt?
I read something a year or so ago where someone outlined “the next needed step.” That is, he was saying the Constitution laid a good foundation, but missed some bits. I don’t recall specifically what he said was needed to fill those bits.
I don’t want to believe that governments have to always end up corrupt, all evidence to the contrary. I think PART of the key to preventing what we have is to keep it small.
I think PART of the key to preventing what we have is to keep it small.
so, question. I believe in individual liberty. I think government is a necessary evil, but necessary none the less. what do I do. I agree with neither large political party. I am prepared to cast a vote for trump, but don’t really want to. I believe in classical liberalism, so that points me toward the liberatarian party. however the liberatarian party candidate chose as a running made a non classical liberal gun grabber as a running mate. Sit the election out? vote demagogue trump? vote end the Republic hillary? vote squishy johnson? FML, I’m 29 and have never had a good candidate to vote for.
Arkansas kurt,
You ask excellent questions and I commend you for your transparency and honesty.
Here are my guiding principles:
Vote for the best candidate … which sometimes means the least horrible of a field of horrible candidates and someone that you may personally despise. (“Best” here means advocating for the best policies for our nation.)
Vote for the best candidate that actually has a chance of winning.
Vote for the best candidate that will appoint the best United States Supreme Court Justices. This is, in some ways, even more important than the quality of the Presidential candidate.
There is another principle at play that requires more explanation than one sentence. The reality is that Progressives are overwhelmingly loyal to their candidate, no matter how awful their candidate may be. Furthermore, Progressives comprise close to 50% of the people who vote in elections. The unfortunately reality of these two facts guarantees that a Democrat will win every election where more than two political parties receive a significant number of votes since Democrats will not break ranks to vote for a third (e.g. Libertarian) party. Saying it another way, if the Libertarian party has a serious contender, non-Democrats will split their votes between the Libertarian and Republican candidates and guarantee that the Democrat wins. For this reason, I believe the only course of action is to participate in Republican primaries and advance your preferred Libertarian candidates as Republicans.
Arkansas kurt,
I forgot to mention another consideration. As I stated, Democrats are intensely loyal to their candidates and will not break ranks no matter how awful their candidate may be. That even goes so far as voter turn-out. Most democrat voters will still turn out to vote even if they despise their candidate. When it comes to Libertarian or Republican candidates, their supporters are much more apt to stay home and not vote when they despise their candidates. Thus, if you stay home and refuse to vote for the best candidate that has a serious chance of winning, your democrat voter counterpart IS STILL GOING OUT TO VOTE which gives their candidate an obvious advantage.
The final, obvious question: which is the “best” candidate that has a serious chance of winning? Unfortunately that candidate is Trump. Hillary is an obvious, outspoken, no-holds-barred disaster for firearms rights. If she wins the election, most likely enough Senators and Representatives riding her election “coattails” will win a slim majority in the Senate and House of Representatives. If that happens, I guarantee you that their first order of business will be passing draconian firearm bans and confiscation laws. And their second order of business will be installing Progressive U.S. Supreme Court Justices that will uphold any and all laws that Progressive Democrats pass while they control Congress and the White House.
Is it possible that Trump would cave on gun rights? Sure. Is it guaranteed? HELL NO! At least Trump is saying mostly good things with respect to firearms rights and laws.
Note: I am NOT a Trump fanboy and I did NOT vote for Trump in the primaries. My present support for Trump is merely pragmatic.
Kurt,
Excellent response and thanks for the discussion. U_S went over some good points.
I’d just like to add that today Mark Belling addressed on the air why HE has chosen to vote for Trump. He did not come to that decision lightly, and his reasoning is worth listening to.
That’s not to say his reasoning is meant to persuade. I think ultimately a person really should vote their conscience…however you define that internally. Good bad or indifferent, we have to live with the votes we cast.
But Mark’s remarks today give a good analysis of how HE came to HIS decision. In short…it’s all about Hillary. It’s all about the mere risk of her becoming President.
Dig it up if you can find it…audio or transcript. Worth a look.
Jonathan – Houston,
You are correct.
I have touched upon the same notion another way: the Second Amendment is the proverbial “canary in the coal mine” of rights. Governments who infringe on our right to self-defense are planning to infringe on all of our rights. For various reasons, governments always seem to want to attack our right to self-defense first. Thus the “canary in the coal mine” reference.
“which weapons are too dangerous to own”????
WTF kind of proposition is that?
Trucks, apparently.
Here is another fantastic quote from the source article at TheFederalist:
“… the Left includes folks who think a boy’s declaration that he’s a girl really makes him a girl, yet that a boy’s repeated declarations that he’s killing people on behalf of ISIS has nothing to do with why he’s killing people. Quite frankly, we would have to be insane to let people like that decide which of us should be armed.”
That statement is spot-on.
Once again, the Left and gun-grabbers demonstrate that emotion overrides everything. The reason that they support one concept (a boy’s declaration that he is a girl makes him a girl) is because that FEELS good. And the reason that they reject another concept (a boy’s repeated declarations that he’s killing people on behalf of ISIS has nothing to do with why he’s killing people) is because that FEELS good.
Remember, facts and reality always — ALWAYS — take a back seat to feelings when it comes to gun-grabbers and the Left.
The best quote from the article is in the final paragraph:
“Our right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution precisely because our founders wanted to put decisions about who is empowered to defend themselves and their liberties outside the purview of mobs, politicians, and bureaucrats whose interests in the matter run contrary to the interests of the American people. Every time a mass shooting happens, the knee-jerk reactions of the Left only prove the wisdom of that decision.”
I don’t TRUST liberals(the leftwing-I hate using liberal)to do ANYTHING good.
“The more people want to pass gun laws because they got scared at the sound of popping tires, the less likely anyone is to actually trust them to do that.”
Well, that and they lie all the time, are part of Bloomie’s funded agitprop network without admitting it, and are aggressive about using any event to get people all wee-wee’d up, so they’ll emotionally vote the “right” way, that one time. These people are why the term “October surprise” was coined.
I would prefer to recall Dan Quayle’s expressed view, that “a mind is a terrible thing to lose,” (people laughed)…and conclude that the liberal reaction to guns (versus behavior) points out just how terrible it can be.
Comments are closed.